Wright writes.....

[thegreenhowards]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The picture in my post above shows the Isinglass TPO's progress up to lunchtime today.

 

 

The underframe was rattle can-painted with matt black over red primer. 

 

 

After three hours' drying in a warm environment, I masked off the underframe and rattle can-painted the main body with Burgundy Red. There is a little over-spray, which will be tidied up with sable-applied matt black. 

 

The roof was rattle can-painted with matt black as well. 

 

It should be finished by tomorrow! 

 

 

Evening Tony,

 

That Burgundy red doesn’t look very gloss in the photo. It will need to be gloss to hide the carrier film on the Modelmaster decals, particularly if they’re going over the beading.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

[westerner]

Should have gone to Spec savers!!!!

Re: my post above it has been pointed out to me that the 9 was actually the bottom of an X and the top of a Z. On re-examining the photos far more closely I was wrong and my informant was right. Now changed to 8H(barely readable)00 at one end and 8F00 at @tuther end. 

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Evening Tony,

 

That Burgundy red doesn’t look very gloss in the photo. It will need to be gloss to hide the carrier film on the Modelmaster decals, particularly if they’re going over the beading.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Good evening Andy,

 

It is gloss, but hasn't shown up on the photograph.

 

I've applied the transfers you kindly sent, and there's just the merest hint of carrier film; pictures tomorrow.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[uax6]

Talking of carrier film and modelmaster decals, the late, great Colin Parks used to remove the carrier film from his:

 

Finally found something by Colin Parks that's shows how to remove that film:

 

You mentioned trouble with the silvering effect ontransfers in one of the posts. Well, here is something that might be of interest: I have found out that with Modelmaster transfers (and this might work for other makes) that the carrier film can be removed with a little white spirit on a fine brush - once the transfer has dried out over night. I discovered this when actually attempting to bed-in some transfers which had not adhered too well. The film turned to a gel-like consistency when it came into contact with the white spirit and could be taken off with the tip of the brush leaving the transfer behind. It seems that the adhesive of the transfer is not affected by this technique (and I am talking about small amounts of spirit applied with a 000 brush). You have to varnish over the area afterwards in the normal way of course, but the difference is worth the effort.

 

This method has worked even with tiny lettering and it doesn't affect the paint finish - as long as the paint is not fresh and you don't scrub madly at the area around the transfer.

 

Colin Parks

 

and as a word of caution in another post:

 

I'd be careful about wetting the back of Modelmaster decal sheets with white spirit as it is a solvent for the carrier film over the top of the transfer. When white spirit comes into contact with the carrier film it could well turn it to a gel-like consistency. This is a very useful thing when the transfer is on the model (i.e you can remove the carrier film) but you don't want a gooey mess beforehand!

 

Regards,

 

Colin Parks

 

I've posted these before, but it seems right to post them again re the conversation I was having with Tony on Wednesday.

 

Andy G

 

[Tony Wright]

The Isinglass Gresley TPO is complete and in service (as a single vehicle in an empty stock train). 

 

 

I've modelled it towards the end of its life; many such pre-Nationalisation TPOs lost their traductor gear and nets (though I could fit them retrospectively).

 

 

Of course, this side wasn't altered. 

 

There is just the slightest hint of 'bloom' around the main lettering transfers, but I can live with that (Humbrol Decalfix helps here). 

 

This really is a very good 3D-printed resin kit - ideal for the relatively-inexperienced.

 

It really is a 'layout coach' in my book; 'convincing' enough from 3' - just the sort of carriages I build, given skill and time constraints. 

 

I recommend it.

 

A full review will appear in BRM soon. 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by Tony Wright
typo error

[jwealleans]

How did you prime it, Tony?    I've used multiple coats of filler primer to help cover the stepping from the print process in the past.   I can see the effect on one of your pictures but it's less apparent in the finished ones.

[micklner]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The Isinglass Gresley TPO is complete and in service (as a single vehicle in an empty stock train). 

 

 

I've modelled it towards the end of its life; many such pre-Nationalisation TPOs lost their traductor gear and nets (though I could fit them retrospectively).

 

 

Of course, this side wasn't altered. 

 

There is just the slightest hint of 'bloom' around the main lettering transfers, but I can live with that (Humbrol Decalfix helps here). 

 

This really is a very good 3D-printed resin kit - ideal for the relatively-inexperienced.

 

It really is a 'layout coach' in my book; 'convincing' enough from 3' - just the sort of carriages I build, given skill and time constraints. 

 

I recommend it.

 

A full review will appear in BRM soon. 

 

 

Pedant Head on.

 

As said before I am not a fan of the "Layout" mindset/use coverage for defects and the 3ft observation viewpoint, surely that was left behind in the days when Hornby and other makers  started selling superdetail models in 2004 with Mallard etc.

 

A great shame on this particular model that the Net Side of the vehicle is warped in and out along the bottom edge where it meets the solebar, the Upper Panels show a lot of thin moulding "lines/ridges" as well.

 

Edit

 

Is the Roof glued down as there is daylight showing about hafway down the side . The Coach ends should have beading (or they did in LNER days)

 

3d prints are improving all the time , some 3D Printers still have a way to go at the moment.

Edited March 11, 2022 by micklner
Added further comment

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

How did you prime it, Tony?    I've used multiple coats of filler primer to help cover the stepping from the print process in the past.   I can see the effect on one of your pictures but it's less apparent in the finished ones.

Good evening Jonathan,

 

Priming was my usual practice of three light coats of red-oxide rattle can. Two/three coats of Ford Burgundy Red then completed the job. Under strong studio lights, the stepping is slightly apparent, but, under layout lighting, it's not so noticeable.

 

 

It's possibly less-obtrusive on models representing wooden-bodied carriages which are then finished as being varnished. In red-painting, the 'steps' are apparent, though, as I say, powerful studio lights do magnify this effect. As I also say, under layout lighting, the 'steps' virtually disappear. 

 

I have to say, Isinglass' 3D-printing has improved beyond recognition. The resin quality is far superior than in the past (now supplied by Peedie Models), and it's far less-brittle. 

 

A few years ago, Andy Edgson gave me one of his first 3D-printed carriages to try, and possibly write a review.

 

You'll see from the following pictures why I wrote no more than a few notes..............

 

 

 

It's more like a bent washboard! 

 

Even after loads of filler primer coats, it came out like this.

 

I gave it away!

 

The current Isinglass stuff is far, far superior. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

16 minutes ago, micklner said:

Pedant Head on.

 

As said before I am not a fan of the "Layout" mindset/use coverage for defects and the 3ft observation viewpoint, surely that was left behind in the days when Hornby and other makers  started selling superdetail models in 2004 with Mallard etc.

 

A great shame on this particular model that the Net Side of the vehicle is warped in and out along the bottom edge where it meets the solebar, the Upper Panels show a lot of thin moulding "lines/ridges" as well.

 

3d prints are improving all the time , some 3D Printers still have a way to go at the moment.

Pedant points taken, Mick.

 

However, how long do you expect to live? I ask that question as preparation for another; that being, how many carriages have you actually built? 

 

I've built well over 250 - all of them unashamed 'layout carriages', designed to be viewed (and operated) from at least three feet away. 

 

Anyway, I also don't have the skill to build anything other than 'layout carriages'. 

 

Ah, I've got it! I can 'improve' my models by buying a really cheap camera!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[micklner]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

Pedant points taken, Mick.

 

However, how long do you expect to live? I ask that question as preparation for another; that being, how many carriages have you actually built? 

 

I've built well over 250 - all of them unashamed 'layout carriages', designed to be viewed (and operated) from at least three feet away. 

 

Anyway, I also don't have the skill to build anything other than 'layout carriages'. 

 

Ah, I've got it! I can 'improve' my models by buying a really cheap camera!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Tony

 

I go when I go !!.

 

     I have never bothered counting how many models (why would I be bothered about quoting numbers anyway) that  I have built then kept , sold on or binned , over far too many years . Probably in the hundreds, I was building Airfix Planes etc in the 1960's .

     I build for the pleasure it provides and the challenges of getting them as good in detail and quality as possible. I always finishing them to a reasonable level with extra detail added when necessary, creating a  sensible but not a fragile level of detail.

I cannot see no reason for rushing modelling, that was the main reason I no longer build commision models for others, I intensely dislike having to work to a set time/delievery frame.

 

Pictures of your layout that have been shown on here, there is no obvious 3 foot viewing distances involved that I can see.

 

Each to their own !!!

 

regards

 

Mick

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, micklner said:

Tony

 

I go when I go !!.

 

     I have never bothered counting how many models (why would I be bothered about quoting numbers anyway) that  I have built then kept , sold on or binned , over far too many years . Probably in the hundreds, I was building Airfix Planes etc in the 1960's .

     I build for the pleasure it provides and the challenges of getting them as good in detail and quality as possible. I always finishing them to a reasonable level with extra detail added when necessary, creating a  sensible but not a fragile level of detail.

I cannot see no reason for rushing modelling, that was the main reason I no longer build commision models for others, I intensely dislike having to work to a set time/delievery frame.

 

Pictures of your layout that have been shown on here, there is no obvious 3 foot viewing distances involved that I can see.

 

Each to their own !!!

 

regards

 

Mick

Thanks Mick,

 

Hundreds of carriages? That was my question. If it's hundreds of carriages, then I take my hat off to you; you're far more prolific than I am! And building to a much higher standard, too.

 

May I make a suggestion, please? As you know, I've invited you to visit Little Bytham in the past, but so far you've declined. No matter, but if you ever do take up the invitation, please bring some of your models with you. With your permission, I'll then photograph them (in perspective - which reveals far more that's potentially out of kilter than side-on shots) using a powerful camera under powerful lights. 

 

You say you don't 'buy-in' to my three foot rule (implying it's a sort of 'smokescreen' for poorer modelling). With respect, you might be surprised what my camera/lighting reveal at much less than three feet! 

 

In establishing your 'criticisms' (which I thank you for), I assume you zoom in on my images? If you do, please don't forget that (even though they're sharp), under magnification they do pixelate. 

 

Please do continue to offer 'constructive criticism' of what I show (or, indeed, what others show); I wouldn't wish it any other way. 

 

Finally, my question regarding your longevity was related to what one might hope to achieve in a building programme over a modelling lifetime. In my case (over the last 50 years) it's to build enough locos and stock to populate representations of ECML subjects in BR steam days. To that end, it's over 200 locos, over 250 carriages and 350+ items of goods stock (granted, the last-mentioned is largely not my work; I'm only into scores of wagons I've built). I say all this, not to boast, but to illustrate what I hope can be perceived as a pragmatic approach to achieving this. And, now in my mid-70s, I'm still carrying on. 

 

If your 'modelling lifetime' doesn't need to 'achieve' this large number of items, then you can build to a much higher standard; which you obviously do.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[gr.king]

I appreciate that perceptions vary, as do the standards that various modellers try to maintain or are willing to accept. The only 3D printed model items I have so far seen that were in my opinion sufficiently ridge-free for painting without preparatory scraping down have come from either Mike Trice's own printer (carriage bogies, seats and buffers), or from an un-named supplier to John Marsh (loco fittings he showed me several years ago), or from Bill Bedford (some of the parts of his GN six-wheeled carriages, although the sides of the kits I built weren't quite fully up to my "ready to paint" standard).

 

I appreciate that as items get larger, e.g. long bogie coach sides, the quality of printer required, the time taken to print, and therefore the cost of production of "perfect finish" items all have to increase, possibly to levels that make the product unaffordable for the intended purpose. Quality compromise then becomes necessary, as it does if DIY production on a home printer is the only available option.

 

I would have felt compelled to spend some time scraping the ridges off those Isinglass TPO sides. I've tried to bury fine printing ridges in primer and paint in the past, but I've concluded that unless so much paint is put on that details lose definition, then the printing ridges WILL show through, if not when the paint is new then at a later stage when the thoroughly cured paint layer reaches its final, minimal thickness and "sinks" into previously hidden defects.

[micklner]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Mick,

 

Hundreds of carriages? That was my question. If it's hundreds of carriages, then I take my hat off to you; you're far more prolific than I am! And building to a much higher standard, too.

 

May I make a suggestion, please? As you know, I've invited you to visit Little Bytham in the past, but so far you've declined. No matter, but if you ever do take up the invitation, please bring some of your models with you. With your permission, I'll then photograph them (in perspective - which reveals far more that's potentially out of kilter than side-on shots) using a powerful camera under powerful lights. 

 

You say you don't 'buy-in' to my three foot rule (implying it's a sort of 'smokescreen' for poorer modelling). With respect, you might be surprised what my camera/lighting reveal at much less than three feet! 

 

In establishing your 'criticisms' (which I thank you for), I assume you zoom in on my images? If you do, please don't forget that (even though they're sharp), under magnification they do pixelate. 

 

Please do continue to offer 'constructive criticism' of what I show (or, indeed, what others show); I wouldn't wish it any other way. 

 

Finally, my question regarding your longevity was related to what one might hope to achieve in a building programme over a modelling lifetime. In my case (over the last 50 years) it's to build enough locos and stock to populate representations of ECML subjects in BR steam days. To that end, it's over 200 locos, over 250 carriages and 350+ items of goods stock (granted, the last-mentioned is largely not my work; I'm only into scores of wagons I've built). I say all this, not to boast, but to illustrate what I hope can be perceived as a pragmatic approach to achieving this. And, now in my mid-70s, I'm still carrying on. 

 

If your 'modelling lifetime' doesn't need to 'achieve' this large number of items, then you can build to a much higher standard; which you obviously do.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

     I have no need or ever will need large numbers of Coaches, I have far too many Locos and Wagons as well . I have kitbuilds  from the 1980's e.g Kirk they are being sold off because I simply do not like their quality , compared to current r.t.r and decent etched kits . 

     How many Coaches no idea as already said, at a total guess under a 100 in total. My point is building 100's is of no interest to me I go for quality over quantity on all my models. If I wanted to,  I am sure if my wallet was large enough, and the wife never found out, I could also build  dozens more , personally why would I want to?

      Yes I zoom on many photos on lots of Forums , not just yours alone. Most "faults" are still obvious on normal sized images, I do not do nit picking for the sake of it.

     The faults I noticed on the TPO mentioned above, are because I know the subject, and have built a much better etched version IMHO, and they were obvious faults such as warping on one side of the Coach and the poor fit of the Roof (too narrow not flat ?) . As said 3D models are still in their infancy and are improving all the time.

     As to a Little Bytham perhaps one day, on the current fuel prices it does'nt look very hopeful !!.

 

     I have no overall aim , I simply enjoy modelling when time allows.

 

cheers

 

Mick

[t-b-g]

There is a photo of E70294E taken in June 1958, with the caption stating "just after shopping" here:

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/modelling/213-gresley-tpo-lner-er

 

It not only has all the pick up gear still in place but also appears to be unlined. I don't know when the pick up gear was removed but I am pretty sure it should still be there for the period of Little Bytham.

 

I think it is in maroon in 1958 as the bright red of the letterbox in the side shows up quite well, which wasn't the case with the earlier crimson. I think they had a letterbox on each side. There are also rather nice models illustrated on the same site, showing what a fully detailed TPO might look like.

 

The vehicle is now preserved at Loughborough and looks very smart indeed but the arrangement of windows is different. There are only three at the LH end of the "working" side, then some full height panels. Perhaps it has been altered in preservation. The letter box is maroon now but would have been Post Office Red in service as per the first photo linked below.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/trains-travel/35200891560/in/photolist-VCzLFs-27LX1yK-2kmoUmr-phxdBa-JNkjNo-DzKL5K-2iR7D4u-pv4pnz-imAzy4-M2bH7S-8JJAtk-74WBDm-qHJp34-2iHX6Rp-2kmsHYC-kfVzJ5-aiJh4-eQWDwW-eQWFRs-eQVv5m-eQKvGV-eQJinn-eQWQhE-ezC95Y-2kmoUhZ-eQWNt1-eQKgdD-eQWL4G-eQWrp1-eQK9pp-pfNYVx-px1eUV-dhXH85-aiZcg-f5AHA-aixm7-DxQ448-ceZsHG-pRHRHC-pPBbCg-eQJcia-eQWVZo-eQWwGd-eQWHtJ-eQWTZJ-eQWsZ3-eQJmUk-eQWz6o-Nm8tMi-2bLKgoJ

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wild_boar_fell_railways/9086451274/in/photolist-aiJh4-eQWDwW-eQWFRs-eQVv5m-eQKvGV-eQJinn-eQWQhE-ezC95Y-2kmoUhZ-eQWNt1-eQKgdD-eQWL4G-eQWrp1-eQK9pp-pfNYVx-px1eUV-dhXH85-aiZcg-f5AHA-aixm7-DxQ448-ceZsHG-pRHRHC-pPBbCg-eQJcia-eQWVZo-eQWwGd-eQWHtJ-eQWTZJ-eQWsZ3-eQJmUk-eQWz6o-Nm8tMi-2bLKgoJ-pzzBnY-2iYt27F-pxfJMk-JRAQVE-oNaA5a-76i1VM-phgCNQ-29mCCRf-2h38bKf-26Y4bkL-rep67i-2h3b1Wg-2h37Z4p-yYBBVf-5HvKEe-pTeso5

 

Edit to add that I always check to see if links I added are working. The two to Flickr don't seem to be but that may be temporary. If they don't work, just go to Flickr and type LNER TPO into the search facility. It brings up loads of photos including lots of BR period views.

Edited March 11, 2022 by t-b-g
To add content

[robmcg]

23 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

.....

 

Ah, I've got it! I can 'improve' my models by buying a really cheap camera!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Did someone mention my name   ? 

 

Never fear, instead of 'improving' models with a cheap camera I have progressed to doing it with an expensive one. Currently enjoying Heljan's O2s and must thank you Tony for your contribution of many prototype photos you showed back in 2018 in I think the Heljan product thread with regard to the many and various variations in these imposing 3-cylinder machines.

 

(I do admire the various examples or craftmanship and art shown here lately).

 

edit; correction.  The O2 photos you showed Tony were from this very thread on page 7 in 2013.   Thanks again. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by robmcg
correction

[MarkC]

This is an interesting debate regarding "graining" on 3-D printed models - and one which I may well have a keener interest in very shortly.

 

I took advantage of a Shapeways 10% discount offer last November, and purchased a 4mm Clayton LNER railcar body. It looks very good as supplied, but as yet it's put to one side whilst I acquire all the other bits needed to build it. I do hope to tackle it this year, but I don't think I'll be bringing it away as a project whilst at sea - I don't trust airline baggage handling procedures THAT much...

 

Anyway, this discussion has got me thinking about how to prepare & paint the body, as I have no experience of these Shapeways prints. Comments from 'old hands' at this sort of thing are appreciated.

 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

There is a photo of E70294E taken in June 1958, with the caption stating "just after shopping" here:

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/modelling/213-gresley-tpo-lner-er

 

It not only has all the pick up gear still in place but also appears to be unlined. I don't know when the pick up gear was removed but I am pretty sure it should still be there for the period of Little Bytham.

 

I think it is in maroon in 1958 as the bright red of the letterbox in the side shows up quite well, which wasn't the case with the earlier crimson. I think they had a letterbox on each side. There are also rather nice models illustrated on the same site, showing what a fully detailed TPO might look like.

 

The vehicle is now preserved at Loughborough and looks very smart indeed but the arrangement of windows is different. There are only three at the LH end of the "working" side, then some full height panels. Perhaps it has been altered in preservation. The letter box is maroon now but would have been Post Office Red in service as per the first photo linked below.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/trains-travel/35200891560/in/photolist-VCzLFs-27LX1yK-2kmoUmr-phxdBa-JNkjNo-DzKL5K-2iR7D4u-pv4pnz-imAzy4-M2bH7S-8JJAtk-74WBDm-qHJp34-2iHX6Rp-2kmsHYC-kfVzJ5-aiJh4-eQWDwW-eQWFRs-eQVv5m-eQKvGV-eQJinn-eQWQhE-ezC95Y-2kmoUhZ-eQWNt1-eQKgdD-eQWL4G-eQWrp1-eQK9pp-pfNYVx-px1eUV-dhXH85-aiZcg-f5AHA-aixm7-DxQ448-ceZsHG-pRHRHC-pPBbCg-eQJcia-eQWVZo-eQWwGd-eQWHtJ-eQWTZJ-eQWsZ3-eQJmUk-eQWz6o-Nm8tMi-2bLKgoJ

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wild_boar_fell_railways/9086451274/in/photolist-aiJh4-eQWDwW-eQWFRs-eQVv5m-eQKvGV-eQJinn-eQWQhE-ezC95Y-2kmoUhZ-eQWNt1-eQKgdD-eQWL4G-eQWrp1-eQK9pp-pfNYVx-px1eUV-dhXH85-aiZcg-f5AHA-aixm7-DxQ448-ceZsHG-pRHRHC-pPBbCg-eQJcia-eQWVZo-eQWwGd-eQWHtJ-eQWTZJ-eQWsZ3-eQJmUk-eQWz6o-Nm8tMi-2bLKgoJ-pzzBnY-2iYt27F-pxfJMk-JRAQVE-oNaA5a-76i1VM-phgCNQ-29mCCRf-2h38bKf-26Y4bkL-rep67i-2h3b1Wg-2h37Z4p-yYBBVf-5HvKEe-pTeso5

 

Edit to add that I always check to see if links I added are working. The two to Flickr don't seem to be but that may be temporary. If they don't work, just go to Flickr and type LNER TPO into the search facility. It brings up loads of photos including lots of BR period views.

Thanks for that information Tony.

 

It would be a relatively simple job to fit the traductor gear and netting retrospectively. 

 

I used the images in one of David Larkin's books of TPOs, including E70294E, taken in 1956. It still has all the gear, and appears to be in lined maroon. Other shots in the same book show cars in lined maroon with the gear gone. 

 

Guesswork, I suppose; never a sound basis for model-making. 

 

I'll paint the letterboxes bright red. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Atso]

Good morning Tony and everyone.

 

It has been awhile since I last posted. This is partly due to having a lot on at work and partly due to catching the 'dreaded lurgy' which kept me out of commission for a little while.

 

I have been following Tony's Royal Mail Carriage build and the subsequent discussion with interest. As most of you will know, I am a big fan of 3D printing but also understand that there are limitations to what can and cannot be done using this method. With regard to the 'three foot' rule, I think that what is acceptable is totally up to the modeller in question. Certainly, what will be acceptable to one will not necessarily be acceptable to another. Therefore, the question surely should be: Did the builder gain personal satisfaction with both the build and the finished product? If the answer is yes (and, if appropriate, they learnt a new technique) then surely this is a win.

 

Moving on to my own efforts, I've been working on designing a new N Gauge locomotive from the ground up.

 

 

To those of Eastern Region persuasions, it needs no introduction. However, due to the lack of a suitable RTR chassis that won't require distortions of the loco body's dimensions (and/or heavy modifications), I've been slowly working out my own chassis for this which will be etched (eventually!). The loco will make use of the Peco Collet Goods driving wheels that are presently available. While undersize for a K2, they do provide some much needed clearance under the running plate. Also (as I'm finding out), by keeping the loco's width dead to scale, I've found that clearances for the motion is extremely limited. Therefore, compromises have also had to be made regarding some aspects of the motion and the share of the slide bar brackets. An unacceptable compromise to some I'm sure but a necessary evil that I personally am prepared to accept to create a representation of something that isn't available from any other source (yet!).

Edited March 12, 2022 by Atso

[john new]

8 minutes ago, Atso said:

…. Snipped…

 

Also (as I'm finding out), by keeping the loco's width dead to scale, I've found that clearances for the motion is extremely limited. Therefore, compromises have also had to be made regarding some aspects of the motion and the share of the slide bar brackets. An unacceptable compromise to some, I'm sure but a necessary evil that I personally am prepared to accept to create a representation of something that isn't available from any other source (yet!).

And of course you are re-finding a modern day example of why the narrow 00 gauge arose in the first place with the compromise of fitting 4mm bodies onto HO (3.5 mm approx) track. Make the bodies larger to fit the existing mechanisms.

[65179]

3 hours ago, Atso said:

Good morning Tony and everyone.

 

It has been awhile since I last posted. This is partly due to having a lot on at work and partly due to catching the 'dreaded lurgy' which kept me out of commission for a little while.

 

I have been following Tony's Royal Mail Carriage build and the subsequent discussion with interest. As most of you will know, I am a big fan of 3D printing but also understand that there are limitations to what can and cannot be done using this method. With regard to the 'three foot' rule, I think that what is acceptable is totally up to the modeller in question. Certainly, what will be acceptable to one will not necessarily be acceptable to another. Therefore, the question surely should be: Did the builder gain personal satisfaction with both the build and the finished product? If the answer is yes (and, if appropriate, they learnt a new technique) then surely this is a win.

 

Moving on to my own efforts, I've been working on designing a new N Gauge locomotive from the ground up.

 

 

To those of Eastern Region persuasions, it needs no introduction. However, due to the lack of a suitable RTR chassis that won't require distortions of the loco body's dimensions (and/or heavy modifications), I've been slowly working out my own chassis for this which will be etched (eventually!). The loco will make use of the Peco Collet Goods driving wheels that are presently available. While undersize for a K2, they do provide some much needed clearance under the running plate. Also (as I'm finding out), by keeping the loco's width dead to scale, I've found that clearances for the motion is extremely limited. Therefore, compromises have also had to be made regarding some aspects of the motion and the share of the slide bar brackets. An unacceptable compromise to some I'm sure but a necessary evil that I personally am prepared to accept to create a representation of something that isn't available from any other source (yet!).

 

Looks great Steve. Have you employed the usual 2mm dodge of moving the plane of the slidebars and piston rod outwards (whilst leaving the prototypical width over cylinders) ?

 

Simon

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, 65179 said:

 

Looks great Steve. Have you employed the usual 2mm dodge of moving the plane of the slidebars and piston rod outwards (whilst leaving the prototypical width over cylinders) ?

 

Simon

Good evening Simon,

 

This is an old dodge I've used many times, particularly building locos in EM with outside motion (especially where the crosshead is immediately in front of the leading driver - Thompson Pacifics, all the Ks, O2s, V2s, etc.). 

 

All I do is plug the hole in the centre of the cast cylinders with solder, re-drill a mil' further out and set the slidebars accordingly. The eye is completely deceived, and it works. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[JIJ]

Hi Tony,

 

The wheels and valve gear arrived this morning, I'll try to have a go this week and share my progress.

 

Thanks

Joseph

[robertcwp]

This is E70294E in the 1960s - the photo was taken no earlier than 1962:

 

E70294E_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[drmditch]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Simon,

 

This is an old dodge I've used many times, particularly building locos in EM with outside motion (especially where the crosshead is immediately in front of the leading driver - Thompson Pacifics, all the Ks, O2s, V2s, etc.). 

 

All I do is plug the hole in the centre of the cast cylinders with solder, re-drill a mil' further out and set the slidebars accordingly. The eye is completely deceived, and it works. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

And I thought I was being really wicked when I did that on my A8 !

[Tony Wright]

13 hours ago, robertcwp said:

This is E70294E in the 1960s - the photo was taken no earlier than 1962:

 

E70294E_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Thanks Robert,

 

I think I'll just renumber my model to one which lost the gear. Or, just fit it retrospectively. 

 

One thing of note. In 1956, E70294E had one completely round buffer at each end (those not underneath the gangway)